Cannabis Use Not Sinful if Only Used to Feel Good, (but not to excess)?

[Michael_C]

Michael C:

A QUESTION FOR ALL.

I have sat down with a glass of wine and read the bible. Would you smoke pot and sit down and read the bible? I think not, because you would be high.

If you can’t read the bible you’re in a state that seperates you from God.

It’s a sin.

I’d like to adjust my statement. If someones suffering in pain from sickness they may smoke to relieve pain and very well may read the bible.
My comment is directed at recreational smoking of pot.

If I prayed before each one of my posts and thought them through I would probably have a lot less posts.

Peace.

 

[puzzleannie]

Something else that has not been addressed in the comparison of pot smoking to using alcohol during Prohibition - as long as it is illegal, purchasing and using the drug contributes directly to the activities of criminal organizations behind all kinds of horrible industries including pornography, trafficking in human beings, sales of more dangerous drugs, gambling and so forth (not to mention weapons sales and terrorist activities). Any activity that may objectively be morally neutral becomes sinful when it contributes to the sin of others, or when done in such a way that it reduces or denies the human dignity of the person.

 

[fix]

Steve Andersen:

Ah, but what if you only took one hit when you were reading?

What if you drank a bottle of wine or two rather than just having a glass?

If it is your mental condition than is important then that just proves the priest’s comment that it is ok as long as it is not abused.

That would be for legal substances such as alcohol, not illegal things like pot.

But what/who determines legitimacy?

We know the moral law, so one can conclude what is and is not just.

I

When do you have the right to question a law?

Questioning is not the issue, obeying the law is the issue here.

Is just the fact that a law was enacted correctly within the laws of the land be enough for legitimacy?

Yes, that and that it does not violate God’s law.

Would taking a drink in the USA in 1932 be a sin but ok in 1933?

Yes, I believe it would. Would a new stop sign mean that one does not have to stop at a certain place because yesterday it was not there?

I know Christ said “give unto Caesar” when referring to a particularly odious law but I don’t think that God is loosing any sleep if any of His people are having a smoke on Friday night after a long hard week of paying their taxes and raising their kids

That is the rub, what you think God desires and what He does desire appear to be very different things. It seems to me from this quote, sorry, but a way into moral relativism.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

puzzleannie:

Something else that has not been addressed in the comparison of pot smoking to using alcohol during Prohibition - as long as it is illegal, purchasing and using the drug contributes directly to the activities of criminal organizations behind all kinds of horrible industries including pornography, trafficking in human beings, sales of more dangerous drugs, gambling and so forth (not to mention weapons sales and terrorist activities). Any activity that may objectively be morally neutral becomes sinful when it contributes to the sin of others, or when done in such a way that it reduces or denies the human dignity of the person.

My grandfather made his own beer durring prohibition

and I know people who grow their own crops

no actual organised criminals or other thrid parties were involved

seems to pass your muster then

 

[Steve_Andersen]

fix:

That would be for legal substances such as alcohol, not illegal things like pot.

Ah, to have such clarity

I don’t smoke. I’ve tried it and it was nice and all that but frankly I don’t need chemical help being stupid, hungry, and horny. I can manage that quite well myself, thank you.

but my primary reason for avoiding it is that I’m not a 20 year old with nothing to loose anymore. At 40 some odd years I have a mortgae and a business and a host of things going on that I don’t need tangled up in criminal procedings.

I don’t do it because it is illegal
but the notion that it might be immoral never crossed my mind.

fix:

…
That is the rub, what you think God desires and what He does desire appear to be very different things.

He told His desires? ;-
All I have to go by is what I was taught

fix:

It seems to me from this quote, sorry, but a way into moral relativism.

OT
Some people her throw arround moral relativism as if it were some sort of curse word

But we all know that the world is not all black and white.
Some of it clearly is, but for some other things…there seems to be a season

Look at all that has been written about “just war” or capital punishment for example. There are doctrines that discuss when the taking of a life is sinful and when it is not.

We divide sins into mortal and venial and when we confess the penance varies depending on the sin and the circumstances. While on the plus side different Works are valued differently. A poor man who gives his last penny is considered to have done more than a rich man who gives a million.

clearly somethings are worse than others and some things are better than others.

It’s not all relative …but some of it is

 

[Michael_C]

Steve Andersen:

Ah, to have such clarity

I don’t smoke. I’ve tried it and it was nice and all that but frankly I don’t need chemical help being stupid, hungry, and horny. I can manage that quite well myself, thank you.

but my primary reason for avoiding it is that I’m not a 20 year old with nothing to loose anymore. At 40 some odd years I have a mortgae and a business and a host of things going on that I don’t need tangled up in criminal procedings.

I don’t do it because it is illegal
but the notion that it might be immoral never crossed my mind.

He told His desires? ;-
All I have to go by is what I was taught

OT
Some people her throw arround moral relativism as if it were some sort of curse word

But we all know that the world is not all black and white.
Some of it clearly is, but for some other things…there seems to be a season

Look at all that has been written about “just war” or capital punishment for example. There are doctrines that discuss when the taking of a life is sinful and when it is not.

We divide sins into mortal and venial and when we confess the penance varies depending on the sin and the circumstances. While on the plus side different Works are valued differently. A poor man who gives his last penny is considered to have done more than a rich man who gives a million.

clearly somethings are worse than others and some things are better than others.

It’s not all relative …but some of it is

Steve, If I invite you over for my house with your kids and pour a glass of wine and offer you a glass I assume that’s ok. What if I just light up a joint right there in the living room? Is that ok? I don’t think it is and we have to think deeper as to why that’s not ok.

Peace.

 

[fix]

Steve Andersen:

He told His desires? ;-
All I have to go by is what I was taught

The Church tells us. That is how I know. She tells us breaking the civil law is a sin.

Some people her throw arround moral relativism as if it were some sort of curse word

It is serious. It means you are your own god? What is more serious than placing oneself above the creator?

But we all know that the world is not all black and white.
Some of it clearly is, but for some other things…there seems to be a season

The beauty of being Catholic is we have an authority and resource to go to for any moral question. She can tell us yes, no, or use your prudential judgment. But, she has said to obey the civil law. Where did you get the idea breaking a civil law is ok? Which one may we obey and which one’s should we ignore?

Look at all that has been written about “just war” or capital punishment for example. There are doctrines that discuss when the taking of a life is sinful and when it is not.

Sure, where has the Church said intentionally disobeying the civil law is a matter of prudence?

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Michael C:

Steve, If I invite you over for my house with your kids and pour a glass of wine and offer you a glass I assume that’s ok. What if I just light up a joint right there in the living room? Is that ok? I don’t think it is and we have to think deeper as to why that’s not ok.

Peace.

If it were your house, sure it would be ok
Why wouldn’t it be?
it’s your house

I would assume that most people would have the common sense not to do it in someone else’s house uninvited

As for it front of the kids…that is generally considered ill manners depending upon the age of the children

Although there are some folks who get all bent out of shape if alcohol is used in front of children

Go figure

But “protect the children” is often the mantra of the scoundrel

 

[flick427]

Tantum ergo:

Um, isn’t cannabis use illegal in almost every way (exempting places which have “medical marijuana” provisions)?

It would seem to me that committing an illegal action would be sinful, even if I were doing it “just to relax”. . .

Breaking the law is not what is necessarily sinful and I say this in regards to more than marijuana…
If the US was to outlaw Catholicism and yet you went to church anyway knowing this, it would not be a sin.
The government of man is foolish and subject to the whims of mankind. The church is the truth, that is why we follow it. There is a time for obedience but also there is moral truth and the pursuit of holiness.

 

[fix]

You indicated in one of your answers (regarding getting drunk) that breaking a civil law is by definition a sin. Does not the Catholic Church adhere to Aquinas’ discourse that the natural law of God is written on the hearts of men and, therefore, any civil law that transcends it is immoral and ought to be disobeyed. Thus, breaking a civil law does not necessarily mean sin. Civil Vs Divine Law

                                                                                     You are correct that Aquinas and Catholic teaching and tradition requires us to observe revealed divine law (the Ten Commandments) and natural law before (in a hierarchical sense) human positive law (civil law). Part of revealed divine law is Jesus' clear statement, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's." In addition, there is Peter's injunction to the early Christians to "maintain good conduct among the Gentiles" and to "be subject to every human institution for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king as supreme or to governors as sent by him" (1 Pt 2, 12-14). Therefore, Christians are not free to use divine law as a 'higher law' - which it is - to exempt them from observance of civil law.

                         The only case, which even Aquinas' acknowledges - in which one is not bound to observe a civil law is when that law so violates the purpose of law that it ceases to be law. A law is, according to Thomas, "an ordinance of reasons, promulgated by a competent legislator, on behalf of a community capable of receiving it, to promote the common good." Thus, if a law runs contrary to the common good, undermines the common good, or severely damages society, it is not a law at all and need not be observed.

Indeed, violating a just civil or criminal law is an immoral act. For it is observation of the civil laws which allows society to function.

dwc.org/questions/Civil_vs_Divine_Law.shtml

 

[Faithful_2_Rome]

I dont smoke pot for two reasons…and it doesnt involve legality…if alcohol were to be stupidly made illegal again, I wouldnt think twice about buying beer or especially wine illegally…btw…was wine part of prohibition back then? If so, how did the Church handle it? Did the govt leave them alone?

Anyway…

I dont smoke pot for two reasons…

1. Slightly asthmatic and the high requires deep inhaling…it costs too much money to just smoke it like a Cigar and get a contact high
2. Cost…forget it… though I liked Marijuana more than Alchohol…it never made me sick or gave me hangovers… its crazy for what the cost is now…when I smoked, it was 1 joint $1 dollar… a dime bag meant $10 for 10-11 joints…ah…the good ol days! former or current smokers know how far back I’m going with those prices! Last I heard, it was like $10 for ONE joint??? thats outragious if true… I can get a decent buzz with a few Jack N Cokes and a Rum Cigar.

I have nothing against making Pot legal…in many ways I find it safer than alcohol…I have NEVER smoked with a person who was high and wanted to get violent… I’d need 50 more sets of fingers and toes to count how many DRUNKS I have met or seen who turn Hyde after they drank booze. I aint about to campaign for another drug to be legalized, but if it ever happened, I wouldnt freak out either…NOR like the phoney stats suggest…would I begin smoking it just cause it were legal. When I smoked, it was like I drank…in moderation. Just like people shouldnt drink a six pack or more a day, they shouldnt smoke weed in that amount either…but to come home and burn a few tokes after work…similar to drinking a beer?..I aint offended at all.

 

[Ghosty]

I think we’re missing the fact that in many places in the world, marijuana is not illegal. It’s also being “decriminalized” in many areas as well. I know that in the Seattle area there has been a winding down of enforcement of marijuana possession laws so long as there is no intent to sell. If the law changes, then there is nothing sinful in using marijuana.

The question of sin pertains only to law, and that’s a pretty sticky wicket to get into. Is a “Just Law” any law enforced by a “legitimate government”? Is a government’s legitimacy hampered by its enforcement of “unjust laws” such as legalized and protected abortion? Personally I can’t see any reason why the U.S. government, for example, can be considered a legitimate government because it does not protect the most vulnerable members of its jurisdiction, and in fact physically and legally defends those who kill them. This is just my view, however. The bottom line is that it is a sin on some level to violate a “just law” by a legitimate government. Deep and true personal discernment, and not just “it feels good”, is the order of the day on this issue.

 

[fix]

Ghosty:

I think we’re missing the fact that in many places in the world, marijuana is not illegal. It’s also being “decriminalized” in many areas as well. I know that in the Seattle area there has been a winding down of enforcement of marijuana possession laws so long as there is no intent to sell. If the law changes, then there is nothing sinful in using marijuana.

The question of sin pertains only to law, and that’s a pretty sticky wicket to get into. Is a “Just Law” any law enforced by a “legitimate government”? Is a government’s legitimacy hampered by its enforcement of “unjust laws” such as legalized and protected abortion? Personally I can’t see any reason why the U.S. government, for example, can be considered a legitimate government because it does not protect the most vulnerable members of its jurisdiction, and in fact physically and legally defends those who kill them. This is just my view, however. The bottom line is that it is a sin on some level to violate a “just law” by a legitimate government. Deep and true personal discernment, and not just “it feels good”, is the order of the day on this issue.

Even in a just society, as the USA is, not every law is just. The CCC discusses this topic very well. It discusses the points you raise.

 

[Ghosty]

I see nothing in the CCC to indicate that the U.S. has legitimate authority. On the contrary, the CCC explicitly states that:

1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: **by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.**36 If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

The U.S., through defending abortion with the weight of its law and doing violence to those who stand against abortion by throwing them in prison shows that its claims of moral legitimacy are indeed false. The U.S. government stands directly opposed to Natural Law. I’ve seen nothing in the CCC to indicate that a government can violate the most basic Natural Laws and good of its people and still be considered a “just government”.

[1902](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1902.htm’) Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”

In fact, based on the CCC, I would reverse your statement and say that in an unjust society, as the U.S. is, not every law is unjust. There are laws in the U.S. that follow Natural Law, just as there are in the most despotic and murderous dictatorships. A society and government can be called morally legitimate only when it serves the common good, something that the U.S. most certainly does not. This isn’t something peculiar to the U.S., but to every modern nation-state that I’m aware of.

So yes, there are just laws, and the lack of justice in a government is no excuse to break just laws. Legitimate authority is indeed binding on society, but that authority does not derive legitimacy from itself. Authority only derives legitimacy from protecting the common good. We are bound by legitimate, God-given authority, all others are imposters.

Were it a case of the U.S. being morally legitimate, which the CCC indicates it is not, then I would have to say without reservation that use of substances that the government outlaws would indeed be sinful, because we are bound to follow legitimate authority even when it speaks on issues not bound by Natural Law. This is not the case, however, so in my opinion such things are open for debate. We’re not talking about laws that conform to Natural Law, such as traffic regulations for the protection of society, but rather laws that have no basis in any kind of Natural Law. This isn’t an excuse to flaut every law a morally illegitimate state has, but rather a reason to question the authority it has to enact and enforce laws that do not protect the common good.

 

[fix]

Ghosty:

I see nothing in the CCC to indicate that the U.S. has legitimate authority. On the contrary, the CCC explicitly states that:

The U.S., through defending abortion with the weight of its law and doing violence to those who stand against abortion by throwing them in prison shows that its claims of moral legitimacy are indeed false. The U.S. government stands directly opposed to Natural Law. I’ve seen nothing in the CCC to indicate that a government can violate the most basic Natural Laws and good of its people and still be considered a “just government”.

In fact, based on the CCC, I would reverse your statement and say that in an unjust society, as the U.S. is, not every law is unjust. There are laws in the U.S. that follow Natural Law, just as there are in the most despotic and murderous dictatorships. A society and government can be called morally legitimate only when it serves the common good, something that the U.S. most certainly does not. This isn’t something peculiar to the U.S., but to every modern nation-state that I’m aware of.

So yes, there are just laws, and the lack of justice in a government is no excuse to break just laws. Legitimate authority is indeed binding on society, but that authority does not derive legitimacy from itself. Authority only derives legitimacy from protecting the common good. We are bound by legitimate, God-given authority, all others are imposters.

Were it a case of the U.S. being morally legitimate, which the CCC indicates it is not, then I would have to say without reservation that use of substances that the government outlaws would indeed be sinful, because we are bound to follow legitimate authority even when it speaks on issues not bound by Natural Law. This is not the case, however, so in my opinion such things are open for debate. We’re not talking about laws that conform to Natural Law, such as traffic regulations for the protection of society, but rather laws that have no basis in any kind of Natural Law. This isn’t an excuse to flaut every law a state has, but rather a reason to question the authority it has to enact laws that do not protect the common good.

You are joking? The USA does have some unjust laws, but you are arguing it is not a legitimate government and therefore we may disobey drug laws?

 

[Ghosty]

You are joking? The USA does have some unjust laws, but you are arguing it is not a legitimate government and therefore we may disobey drug laws?

The U.S. does not merely have some “unjust laws”, it has laws that are directly contrary to Natural Law, and it enforces them with violence. The U.S. government directly objects to the laws written into nature by God and discernable by all humans regardless of religious conviction and does violence to those who defend what is only rational on even non-religious grounds. Based on the CCC, that is the very definition of an illegitimate authority. Read it for yourself.

On what basis, in the CCC, do you say that the U.S. has moral legitimacy?

I believe I’ve already answered your question in my previous post, and no I’m not joking. The only legitimate government I can think of immediately off the top of my head is Vatican City.

 

[fix]

Ghosty:

The U.S. does not merely have some “unjust laws”, it has laws that are directly contrary to Natural Law, and it enforces them with violence. The U.S. government directly objects to the laws written into nature by God and discernable by all humans regardless of religious conviction and does violence to those who defend what is only rational on even non-religious grounds. Based on the CCC, that is the very definition of an illegitimate authority. Read it for yourself.

On what basis, in the CCC, do you say that the U.S. has moral legitimacy?

I believe I’ve already answered your question in my previous post, and no I’m not joking. The only legitimate government I can think of immediately off the top of my head is Vatican City.

from post #50

You are correct that Aquinas and Catholic teaching and tradition requires us to observe revealed divine law (the Ten Commandments) and natural law before (in a hierarchical sense) human positive law (civil law). Part of revealed divine law is Jesus’ clear statement, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s.” In addition, there is Peter’s injunction to the early Christians to “maintain good conduct among the Gentiles” and to “be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king as supreme or to governors as sent by him” (1 Pt 2, 12-14). Therefore, Christians are not free to use divine law as a ‘higher law’ - which it is - to exempt them from observance of civil law.

The only case, which even Aquinas' acknowledges - in which one is not bound to observe a civil law is when that law so violates the purpose of law that it ceases to be law. A law is, according to Thomas, "an ordinance of reasons, promulgated by a competent legislator, on behalf of a community capable of receiving it, to promote the common good." Thus, if a law runs contrary to the common good, undermines the common good, or severely damages society, it is not a law at all and need not be observed. For example, the law which decriminalized abortion in the United States denies equal protection under the laws to citizens and potential citizens of the nation. Moreover, it encourages murder. Therefore, that law is not a true law and need not be observed by Christians. In other words, we do not have to hold that abortion is okay, legal, acceptable, a right, or any other thing. However, all the other laws, regarding trespassing, murder, destruction of property, which are legitimate laws and are necessary to the common good must be observed.

 

[eyeCalypso]

kmktexas:

It is a sin to disobey the lawful authority in any matter that they are not contradicting moral or natural law.

Ahh, here’s a point I don’t think anyone’s raised here. Is prohibition of marijuana either moral or natural?

Marijuana is a plant (made by God Himself). What could be more unnatural than making nature itself illegal?

Also in 2000 years of marijuana use, not a single death is ever attributed to using marijuana. No OD’s. Also, no study has shown that lung, heart or any other disease has ever been linked to marijuana use. It’s not physically addictive. Apparently it’s a benign substance that does very little harm to the body, even when smoked. So what’s immoral about consuming marijuana?

Could one rightly suggest that the prohibition of marijuana is unjust?

 

[Ghosty]

First off, Aquinas’ writtings are a matter of opinion only, not Church teaching. I’m free to differ with them and still stay well within orthodoxy. Secondly, the “render unto Caesar” line is taken out of context. The people whom Jesus was speaking to were trying to have it both ways, using Caesar’s laws and money when it suited them, as they pulled the money out of their own pockets; they were being hypocrites. This is highlighted later at Jesus’ crucifixion, when they use Rome’s laws to persecute Jesus. The issue at hand in that passage is not the legitimacy of government, but the hypocrisy of those who hide behind governments while at the same time flauting them.

eyeCalypso: More importantly, the U.S. government is not lawful. It stands in direct contridiction to Natural Law. If it were a lawful government, then it would be sinful to disobey its drug laws.

 

[fix]

Ghosty:

First off, Aquinas’ writtings are a matter of opinion only, not Church teaching. I’m free to differ with them and still stay well within orthodoxy. Secondly, the “render unto Caesar” line is taken out of context. The people whom Jesus was speaking to were trying to have it both ways, using Caesar’s laws and money when it suited them, as they pulled the money out of their own pockets; they were being hypocrites. This is highlighted later at Jesus’ crucifixion, when they use Rome’s laws to persecute Jesus. The issue at hand in that passage is not the legitimacy of government, but the hypocrisy of those who hide behind governments while at the same time flauting them.

eyeCalypso: More importantly, the U.S. government is not lawful. It stands in direct contridiction to Natural Law. If it were a lawful government, then it would be sinful to disobey its drug laws.

You are arguing that the Church teaches that the USA is not a legitimate government. You base this on your private interpretation of the CCC? Do you have any source from the Church to prove your claim? Certainly abortion laws are unjust and the Church has stated so, but where has the Church stated all other just laws may be disobeyed?

Smoking pot in the USA is a sin, unless the law has an exemption for medical use and one has a Rx from a physician.